<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2010 (4) TMI 605 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113348</link>
    <description>Criminal liability for default in filing the statement of affairs under section 454 of the Companies Act, 1956 required proof beyond reasonable doubt that the persons proceeded against were directors or responsible officers on the relevant date, that the statement was not filed in time, and that the default occurred without reasonable excuse. The documentary material was found insufficient to establish the respondents&#039; on the winding-up date, and the evidence also indicated belated filing, responses to objections, and attendance before the official liquidator, supporting explanation and reasonable cause. The prosecution therefore failed to prove the statutory offence, and conviction was not warranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 15 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Oct 2014 09:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=150354" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (4) TMI 605 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113348</link>
      <description>Criminal liability for default in filing the statement of affairs under section 454 of the Companies Act, 1956 required proof beyond reasonable doubt that the persons proceeded against were directors or responsible officers on the relevant date, that the statement was not filed in time, and that the default occurred without reasonable excuse. The documentary material was found insufficient to establish the respondents&#039; on the winding-up date, and the evidence also indicated belated filing, responses to objections, and attendance before the official liquidator, supporting explanation and reasonable cause. The prosecution therefore failed to prove the statutory offence, and conviction was not warranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113348</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>